Sean Carroll - Layers Of Reality - The Complexity of The Universe
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 січ 2018
- Sean Carroll is a cosmologist and physics professor specializing in dark energy and general relativity. He is a research professor in the Department of Physics at the California Institute of Technology. He has been a contributor to the physics blog Cosmic Variance, and has published in scientific journals and magazines such as Nature, The New York Times, Sky & Telescope, and New Scientist.
Recorded: 2016 - Наука та технологія
Sean is the real deal, someone who asks genuinely deep questions and tries to connect the dots. I gained a lot of respect for him when he defended philosophy against the many nay-sayers in his field who don’t appreciate its importance to certain areas, such as the foundations of the scientific method or political debates, etc. He is one of my favorites to listen to.
There are numerous other theoretical physicists who are equally brilliant. Sean's strength that distinguishes him from his peers is his oratory skill. Other theoretical physicists, who may be equally brilliant, are better kept secluded from the public because they are weird.
wcropp1 - I agree that it is sometimes annoying when scientists dismiss philosophy without understanding that science is a branch of philosophy; it used to be called "natural philosophy" as I'm sure you know. As you say, the origins of the scientific method lie in philosophy. Have you read "What is this thing called science?" by Alan Chalmers? if not then I hope you get the opportunity/time to do so as it is a wonderful exploration of how the scientific method has evolved, and the issues/problems/limitations of each type of method.
George, I won't dispute your comment but he sits at Feyman's desk. For me this says something. ;-). Seriously: I agree there are definitely brilliant physicists who are not able to make these complex topics understandable for ordinary folks like myself.
think of the universe like a cup of coffee
I totally agree!
He's become my favorite speaker on physics. He doesn't do vague. Loving it.
Check out Brian Greene.
@@jayfredrickson8632 I don’t dislike Brian Green but he doesn’t compare to Sean Carroll. He just doesn’t catch my attention in the same way. Not even close.
Dr Carroll is not only brilliant he is an excellent lecturer and communicator. I thoroughly enjoy listening to him.
This guy is really good at explaining things.
Dizzy Djinn yea it’s almost like it’s his job to explain things to people. Weird
I respect Sean Carroll, even more after watching him speak from a fire station without missing a beat.
You gotta love a physicist who can take difficult theories, ideas, etc. and make them so much more accessible to a larger audience.
Sean Carroll has earned the right to sit at Feynman's desk.
Funny thing,Sean started out stealing Richards sack lunch’s!!
I hadn't made the comparison before, but it works. Sean is so good at keeping it real.
“If you can’t explain it to a child you don’t know it well enough.” Not sure who said that but it’s true.
@@goobytron2888 "'If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself" -Einstein. See Sean explain dimensions at three levels of difficulty which is on UA-cam to illustrate, he understands!
Mr Carrol is not only a very intelligent man, but also a gifted speaker, allowing us to grasp some seriously complicated theories.
I just love this man and his mind! Sean Carroll communicates to the common man better than any other physicist without being condescending or dumbing it down (too much).
It is a treat to listen to Sean! I like the way he explains things. The words he uses, the pauses, everything make learning from him enjoyable.
Sean, thanks for a very interesting and overall comprehensive talk. I have always highly enjoyed listening to lecture on physics and cosmology, and I've always held you, your intelligence and style in high regard. Please carry on!! :)
Thanks Dr. Carroll. Whatever academia fears, books and Utube videos have opened up a “public general understanding” for me, and an appreciation for what you guys are up to. Bring it on. More. More. Keep busy. Do it. Learn. Learn. And tell us about it: just as you have done here.
Sean Carroll on Artificial Intelligence Channel posted Jan.2018 - Thank you for a great video! It is fascinating to hear how a physicist functions at work, and how you came to the place you are at present in your field. Some of my fave books were Dr.Mchio Kaku's books years ago, I loved them and shared them with my son , who is a genius (he is a talented illustrative artist). I have seen you on World Science Festival, which I really love! Thank you for sharing the fantastic science with regular people like me, it is generous of you, I am grateful. Best wishes for continued success! Jessi Ferri
I love this man, his ideas are great and his ability to think outside the box is fantastic.
Sean's voice is perfect. He should be the next presenter for Through the Wormhole.
You are doing a great job Sean. I studied engineering but I got interested in physics and cosmology by listening to you and others in the field. I also enjoy your talks about religion.
I could listen to this man talk all day! I am ab big fan, I am a High school drop out, but physics and math as well as pondering all abut the universe later in life. Where were these guys when I was in high school? 1983- to the most part 1987.. Thank you Mr. Carroll..
sean, youve done so much to raise curiousity about physics and science. worthwhile and needed:)
I hope that thinking about thinking is productive. And that thinking leads to tinkering with experiments which results in more knowledge which prompts more thinking. I feel humble watching people smarter than I continue this loop here on UA-cam. Thanks for posting this video.
Very well said indeed.
When ancient Indian mathematicians, Aryabhata, Madhava, etc., discovered infinite series that was just a thought. Thinking about it gave rise to calculus when the Indians could calculate sin and tan of very small angles. The Arabs caught on the thought and improvised upon the Indian's thinking (preserved in the library at Alhambra) that were translated by Europeans, enabling/enlightening Kepler, Copernicus, Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Leibniz, Euler to frame the foundations of modern science, while we extend them into the realm of multiverse and strings, quantum fields etc., and John Hagelin extends them to show how dual nature of the physical world leads to the non-duality of universal consciousness.
If Descartes were alive he would have taken all these time to answer Princess Elizabeth's mind body connection.
_and John Hagelin extends them to show how dual nature of the physical world leads to the non-duality of universal consciousness_
Only one problem - there is not even a hint of a _dual nature of the physical world._
Death Valley Dazed I
Death Valley - Sarcasm re: meta-thinking is a bit misplaced. In fact many of the innovations (gps for example) of the last 100 years began as ‘pure thought experiments’ before the practical engineering possibilities were applied. Various current AI projects are based on ‘thinking about thinking’.
I was not actually being sarcastic. Sorry about not being clear. I am in awe of clear thinking people like you.
Sean Carroll, I learned so much from you, you are wonderful in communicating ideas, you and Brian Green I love so much
If your work leads to an understanding of why observing quanta, causes waves to become particles and your books make it lay friendly, the benefits to humanity could be enormous. I love your work and perspective. Good job Sean.
I like this man a lot. I really loved this personal interview and background information about him. I mostly agree with his philosophy and I envy him because he is so lucky in life, haha.
He is legend, I like Sean more when he is Sean and talk informal directly with ppl
Sean is definetly one of my idols. True genii can explain even the most complex theories to anyone and he is a pro!
I really enjoyed Sean's book The Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself. He's one helluva teacher. I've learned quite a bit not only from his book but, also from his interviews as well. He sits in Richard Feynman's old desk. All respect for that one Sean.
ive never thought to think about entropy when i thought of where humans fit in to the grand scale of things, Sean your so great
I like Sean a lot. This is a really honest and open perspective on present physics and the trials and tribulations of doing work therein. Many never turned down, let alone twice, a job from Hawking (late lamented) and as such Sean is very priveliged.
His description of doctoral students having a very small chance of working in a tenured position in physics is spot on.
I have had issues in the past with Sean's view of dark energy, which to me, at least, is bunkem. Of the highest order. And his lack of mentioning the accelerating universe, except for a mere couple of times, is warmly welcomed! The supernovae observations (exploding white dwarfs) are much more comfortably represented in other ways, rather than introducing it as a GR lambda (the dark energy). Dirac is my hero therein and wish he were around to correct all the misinformationists on this topic!
Anyway. A great, lucid, truthful representation of physics research is what this video represents.
Had I been Hawking: I would have called Sean a third time. Where better to live on this planet than Cambridge, England!? I may have asked.
Sean Carroll is first rate!!!
Very deep respect and admire for your intellectual depth and efort to educate some of us thirsty for knowledge. Thank you sir, thank you very much!
Did anyone else pause at 8:xx to see if there were sirens near your house?
Clone36 ......yes !
Yep, a couple times
Two or three times. I live on a boulevard near a hospital, a fire station, and a fairly high-crime area... :-\
What a wonderful educator, scientist and honest human being.....
Man I LOVE Sean!! Such a great speaker!
I am a Proababilist and also an Energy Engineer so I appreciate your efforts to extend the Second Law. I think you are on the right track. Bayes’ Theorem is an indirect way of writing the definition of probabilistic conditioning, which is the essence of statistics. Have you read Judea Pearl on causality? Daphne Koller’s genius tome on Graphical Model Theory is a more modern treatment. Computer scientists and (Shannon) Information Theorists have a good start on understanding and quantifying complexity.. (Probabilistic) Graphical Model Theory may provide the framework you are looking for to combine and synthesize these fields with Statistical Physics.
I encourage you to continue to apply your brilliant mind to this problem. I will be very interested in what you can discover.
You are an illiterate fuckwit.
Sean, 2nd that idea .....loved your last book !
I love Sean Carroll... for his mind! Just to be clear.
brigham2250 I love him for everything he is 🥵💦
am watching sean on 'dark matter' @great courses. from internal comments, that was filmed BEFORE the LHC even went on line. would like to ask Dr Carroll to consider 'updating' that course... add a couple lectures ....
From the thumbnail I thought he might have had a stroke and I am so glad I was wrong.
John Morris lmao... I thought pretty much the same thing.. Was like, did he have a stroke??.. Lol
Same. Not the most flattering pic. Lol
robotaholic frolic 😂😂
Same. I wrote that in my comment before I read yours!
Bringing into question things like the importance of complexity and thought, and how we are to define and approach these notions, is clearly going in the right direction. Reaffirms my suspicion that Terence Mckenna got most of it right.
Carroll reels in science from the cold depths of scientism so that it is possible to know less and understand more about how science is entangled with consciousness. This allows for philosophy, psychology, biology, and everything else in our human experience combine into being.
just great, never seen like that & hope to see more like that.
0:36 I grew up in a creationist household. This understanding of open and closed systems snapped this creationist idea for me and was one of the first portions of science used correctly that led me out of the creationist paradigm.
Wonderfully done
Best argument yet for taking your coffee black . (I do)
I only wish I could present a clear and simple explanation for both flat earth and miracle (big bang,there has to be a start) people to help them overcome the inability to get past the uncomfortable stage of new thinking and let go of the childish first impressions .
I do empathize with the obsession to think (over think) and complicate the simple . Simplification is complexity resolved.
Have you looked at Constructor Theory and how it might set a context for the questions that you are raising in this video?
In my view, one of the best tools in recent years to bridge the gap between theoretical physics and the public was the "Flash Forward" tv series.
Sadly it was canceled after 1 season but it had much promise I think.
Loved the video. I think the camera was too close to Sean's face. Also, you can tell this was recorded in 2016 because he doesn't mention Ligo detection of grav waves.
one of the logical thinkers in the field....real thinker!.
Is the universe itself actually expanding or is it more of an entropic redistribution of the matter within the universe from its original centralized origin? Is the universe an actual container for the matter presumed to be contained by it and what contains this container?
It is great thinkers like Sean that brings humanity forward. Not old egocentric, near sighted and obsolete Reality-TV hosts (you know of whom I'm talking)
I would like to know if Sean is taking seriously the studies and theory of consciousness being developed by Giulio Tononi, the Integrated Information Theory. It’s the first theory that starts making sense and uses a radically new approach. I would also like to congratulate for the clarity of Sean’s explanations which denotes a very deep understanding.
Whats those sounds in the background starting around 7:31. They go completely haywire around 8:20... Sounds like an emergency vehicle in distress..
what's with the sirens. am i just really high
smotpoker81 I thought the police was coming to my house or something. Had to take off my earphones twice lol
maybe we're both just really high. you have to be to appreciate this kind of stuff.
Glad it's not just me.
California.
smotpoker81 - I love watching this stuff high, which I am right now. Guess I'm not the only one, the real world is mindblowing!! Those who settle for "the secret" or "spirit science", don't understand how much deeper and rebellious reality can become.
A very pleasant presentation
Dear Professor Carroll,
Electricity is the servant of Mind.
Kind regards,
L. Dove
Arbiter - Universal Law
At one point in this Carrol said we couldnt understood Dark Energy. But I thought that Dark Energy was (at least somewhat) understood as a byproduct of space itself. And that we simply don't understand it terribly well due to it being so weak that we can just barely even detect it on scales humanly observable. And so it manifests itself only on stellar or galactic scales.
Is this old , am I wrong, or what?
I wish I had Internet fascility like today when I was in school,we grew up knowing science looking at our science teachers who were not so humble like the ones I get to see in youtube today.Probably I could've been one one them who "do physics,more specifically cosmology for living"
Hi Sean, thanks for uploading. Curious if you've given any additional thought to how you might further your "poetic naturalism" idea? or else introduce still another in which you might nest it?
btw the thumbnail for this is frickin’ supreme
Did you noticed the Doppler Effect started at 7:40 when he starts talking about Causality?
At 10:20 when Sean talks about inflation and how, in our region of space, it ends, where the does the big bang fit in? Lately I've been hearing more and more about a "hot" big bang (as Ethan Siegel refers to it), and from description it sounds like in regions where eternal inflation ends, we get a hot big bang, so does that mean the moment before inflation is NOT a big bang? Or is there more than one big bang being discussed, hence the need to distinguish one from the other by calling it hot?
Great interview.
The body is a detailed thought. Dualism of body and mind resolves with the understanding that matter consists of ideas that have been chosen by conscious entities. The fact that ideas can become sense objects is routinely demonstrated to everyone with dreams. All the evidence available to science can be represented in a dream environment, which is constructed through choices of how to divide whole concepts.
I like the red shift experiment he was conducting with the fire truck sirens.
Very flattering thumbnail picture.
...without the bonds that hold molecules together, with how much force would the electrons be expelled? Or, are we witnessing the transition from chaos to order where the bodies in the universe are trying to settle/being pushed into their 'place' in the universe? Or, are we looking through the imperfect lens of a 'gravitational slope' caused from the sun or other mass/ group of bodies that distorts light enough that makes everything appear to be moving away from everything else at increasing speeds? Or, is matter yet hot enough from the big bang that, especially in a cold environment, the energy emanating from matter causing the rapid expansion, still?
Interesting-Thoughtful .
I'd like to hear him discuss M-theory.
Patience. Let him work his way in order from A-theory to N-theory before demanding more.
26:00 Interesting talk, as always. What if the DE is a geometry problem; like ellipses are to the solar system. What if it is a fractal geometry? An iterating, growing, developing and evolving fractal . I have studied the fractal attractor and have found, by experiment, it may offer a solution to the large scale 'DE' and Hubble expansion and deals with the cosmological principle, inflation expansion and the galaxy distribution. The same geometry, I have found, behaves as light (the EMS) with a constant speed, and log sinusoidal form with wave and particle behaviour (the observation problem). With the fractal I have unified the small with the large; fitting and explaining the problems presented. There's an opportunity for a 'Rheticus' out there because it is only an interest to me, I am not a communicator, at least at the level demanded. Here is a basic presentation of what I have found with respect to cosmology. '(Inverted) Fractal Demonstrating Micro Quantum and Macro Astronomical Observations and Conjectures' ua-cam.com/video/NoTEwZ-pTtk/v-deo.html
Show less
REPLY
I admire your work...however I. the search for answers to "why" questions, why is Chaos and Order Theory not included in the basic investigations?
Jeanette York
Chaos theory, while mathematically robust, doesn't extend as well as originally hoped, and it has weaker predictive power over the physical universe than originally hoped.
"Chaos and Order Theory"
Because those words are relative.
Physics does deal with causation leading to complex coagulations (that you types call "order").
Sean is a great thinker.
I suggest complexity arises where energy flows periodically (sunrise, sunset) through a randomly agglomerated system (eg, planet) whose configuration includes many different configurations of matter (rocks, water, gases), many modes of intra-system energy transfer (radiation, convection), and various types of phase changes.
In such a situation, one "high-level" system of phase changes can create regions of both high and low entropy with respect to a more malleable subsystem, which can in turn host its own regions of high and low entropy for a sub-subsystem, and so forth. All this must occur over disparate timescales and various orders of magnitude of space configuration changes.
You also need some luck. Maybe a lot.
Thanks a lot professor😁
Even though Feynman would slap me for saying this, Carroll is one of my main 'modern personal heroes'.
“YOU ON CRACK” Richard Feynman to SHeldon Cooper
No, he would agree with you. Feynman is dead and gone; he is prestige and reputation, and he hated those things. Carroll is trying to fill big shoes with all the aptitude and enthusiasm that he can muster. He hasn't had Feynman's impact, but he might one day.
Feyman was Feynman, Carroll is Carroll and they have both done a very good job at that and physics. We are all just dwarves standing on the shoulders ...
Interesting thing is that Carroll inherited Feynman's work desk at CalTech.
Feynman would do no such thing. Feynman would be proud for the simple reason, that Carroll would NOT be where he is without Feynman-diagrams. As Einstein said : (freely interpreted, as I cannot remember the original) 'The reason I see this far is because I stand on the shoulders of giants'
Being a former astroph theorist I can relate a lot to what he says about academia, it's not a pretty place with inbreeding and empires as well as nasty personal conflicts. As to the science, my feeling is that something really big is around the corner as regards to the physical explanation of intelligence, mind and complexity. It will be very different from what the old philosophers claim.
I agree with Popper that scientific assertions and claims of authority on a scientific subject should be verifiable or justified by some kind of objective proof. That's what separates science from philosophy and religion. Speculation is just something that can lead eventually to the production of actual science (advancement of knowledge of the workings of the universe).
Sean is the best
What a fantastic role model...
You are not just another physicist, you are sitting on Prof. Feynman's chair not by coincidence, but by your contribution to science.
You're not a physician, you are a brilliant physicist. Carry on 'till some other 'younger' one claims your chair.
He has to be real smart!
Sean is awesome 👍
I see why Sean is the 25% who are accepted in the Scientific echelon, being that he isn't arguing "Old" science but Reinforcing them and testing current scientific theories to give us more data about the information we already have.
A process of spherical symmetry forming and breaking could form the complexity of the Universe. Spherical 4πr² geometry is fundamental to this process and this is based on Huygens’ Principle of 1670 that says,
“Every point on a light wave front has the potential for a new spherical 4πr² light wave".
We can think of the point as a photon ∆E=hf electron interaction or coupling. The spherical surface forms a boundary condition or manifold for the uncertainty of this interaction.
Light wave radiate out spherically with their interior forming the characteristic of three-dimensional space with the spherical surface forming a probabilistic wave front. The two-dimensional spherical surface forms a manifold or boundary condition for positive and negative charge as the future unfolds. We have to square the radius r² because process is unfolding relative to the surface of the sphere. Therefore we have the speed of light squared c² we have the charge of the electron squared e² and the probability wave function squared Ψ². In the equation for Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π we see 4π representing the spherical geometry.
Sean, along with most scientists seem to accept that scientific theories are unproven but preach the big bang theory as fact.
Falsifiable does not mean unproven. There are many proofs for big bang. Not the origin of universe but the expansion of universe. You can go back mathematically to almost the beginning but not the actual beginning.
It seems to me that there is quite a bit wrong with the theory. Inflation theory seems like a fudge to make the data fit the observation. It is an excuses for faster that light expansion without any real evidence of logical deduction. Furthermore, the further we look into space we see the same structure. Fully formed galaxies with equal spacing to the local universe. This is not what we would expect to see if the universe were evolving.
In fact, the evidence seems to me to be more in agreement with Fred Hoyles Steady State Theory than with the big bang theory.
Very cool guy. When we were lighting fires in ancient times, you don't think someone was dreaming about there being a light source without hunting for wood. The bloke sending a letter via a horse-drawn cart, I bet he'd be thinking about how cool it would be to instantly chat with his family. Imagine looking up at the moon, and wondering if we'd ever walk on it? So much of what we've thought improbable has become probable.
Josh Homme has really straightened himself out.
Nice video!
Sir please explain about imagination. By the help imagination we can travel future.
Instead of the acceleration being a push from energy inside the universe, what if it's being pulled from unknown forces outside the universe (if there is an outside that is!)
I think it is being sucked outward by vacuum pressure from empty space beyond.
"we do not understand conscience but we know it is " - very scientific!
...Means 'things' inevitably forms because of the laws of universe.
Science studies those details.
Assuming one bullet hit an other bullet. what is the number of bullets and how they are formed.
was it clockwise and anticlockwise hit.
Is he at Cal Tech or Liberty City??
Was he in Compton?
Much police action in the back ground. Going for Sean Carroll's theories ? ;-)
The more people you teach, the more likely it is that someone will figure things out. I think he should help teach us all how to do his job.
I do think you deserve a new desk, but I suppose Feynmans desk is fitting too.
why is second law of thermodynamics considered a law instead of byproduct of causality?
why do we assume the fundamental forces to be *fundamental* instead of forces that emerge from somewhere in the universe?
1) because if it were a byproduct of causality then it would be possible to reduce entropy within that system.
2) because there is no reason to assume otherwise. that would just be a wild guess. an assumption is not the same as a wild guess.
@@UnleashTheGreen "then it would be possible to reduce entropy within that system" the amount of energy stored in a system through action is always less than one, but the ratio of energy stored is individual in each action which is determined by the mechanics and physical form of the system. in comparison: we can measure how much energy we need to concentrate on an proton to breatk it's boundaries by knowing the strength of strong force - such value for enthropy doesn't exist. we shouldn't assume that there is a LAW that defines the general rule instead of just noting that certain things never happen. for example, we don't assume that there's a law which states that the arrow of time has to point forward - we just haven't found a way to alter it. it's the subtle approach that makes the least possible unnecessary assumptions that we usually take when we do science.
"there is no reason to assume otherwise" not knowing something doesn't make it logical to assume the opposite. we should underline heavily that we still don't have a theory in which gravity works in quantum level, and yet we can be certain that in one way or another, the quantum world has to exist. this alone sets the 'fundamental' status of the fundamental forces questionable: we KNOW that the whole fundamental nature of the universe is unknown to us - from our point of view things just exist and happen and all we can do is to make measurements and make predictions of them. some things seem to be more fundamental than others, but even if some elements seem to stand behind everything else all that it really suggests is that they are _more fundamental_ than the others.
seems to me all you are saying is it is turtles all the way down, that is a position that can always be taken, after all how do we know we even really exist, we can be a dream in someone's head for all we really know.
nothing can be "more fundamental" than something else, just like someone can't be more pregnant than someone else. it either is or isn't fundamental. unless there is something to suggest there is something else that is fundamental rather than the thing you are looking at, you cannot assume there is. you can guess there is but then if you guess that then you can guess any old thing.
i assume you can read and have an internet connection, i can make that assumption because you are answering me, i can be wrong but there are things that suggest i am not. it could be that someone else is reading this and sending it to you by carrier pigeon, that is quite possible, but i cannot assume that, if i do i could just as easily assume god is relaying my words to you directly.
we know enough to assume the 2nd law of thermodynamics is a law. that assumption may turn out to be wrong one day, but until there is something to suggest that it is not, we can't assume it is not.
bottom line, we know things that make us think it is a law, we do not know things that make us think it is not. someone can show why it is a law, you cannot show why it is not, all you can say is "well it might not be". we assume based on knowledge, we guess based on ignorance.
@@UnleashTheGreen "seems that all that you are saying is turtles all the way down" seems that you think you live in a world where most of the nature is already understood. i don't mean this in the philosophical "you can never truly know" sense when i'm saying that we know barely anything about the world we live in. define me the matter, define me the energy, define me the universe, define me the reality beyond the universe, define me the existence itself. i assume that you can't.
"nothing can be more fundamental" don't go cutting hairs with me please. you know that by "more fundamental" i simply ment that the existence of certain phenomenon relies on another phenomenon, which relies on another phenomenon, and so on. like you could say that quarks are more fundamental particles than atoms, and so on. but ironically you hit the bullseye there; something either is fundamental or isn't, meaning that the assumption that something is really the fundamental force of nature really cant be made simply on the argument that we don't know it to depend on anything deeper. by assuming something to be fundamental in nature, we make the assumption that it really is _fundamental;_ that there is nothing deeper than it. it's an extreme assumption made on simply the argument that we don't know of anything else.
"we assume based on knowledge, we guess based on ignorance." this is just an empty aforism. the amount and quality of what we know determines how much we can reasonably assume, and that's what this is all about. "because if it were a byproduct of causality then it would be possible to reduce entropy within that system." i already showed you how this alone isn't enough for the assumption that the scientists generally make. if there's more in to this i'm all willing to listen and learn.
i gave you my thoughts, understand them as you will, i don't want to argue. if you are right there will be a nobel prize waiting for you.
So interesting
I can't watch creamer mix into coffee without thinking of Sean and his entropy lectures. Life ruined.
Not to make it any worse... but... it works with any two liquids. Or solids dissolving. Thinking about complexity and entropy is fun.
It's the other way around for me. I can't think about entropy without picturing coffee and cream mixing! :)
Life enhanced
I take it black
22:37 selforganisation emergence
Nice video. I had the pleasure to meet Mr Carroll myself at the New Scientist Live show in London. He may even remember me, as I was the very last person to ask him a question after his speech and the signing of the books. I asked him a question about one problem, which I've always seen in the Big Bang theory, and which has been troubling me for very long time. It's about how the Universe has been able to increase Its own size above its own Schwarzschild radius (if any object's size is reduced below its Schwarzschild radius, the object inevitably is turning into a black hole). The answer he gave me was indeed odd and I still don't know how to deal with it or how to make better sense of it. However, it's not completely meaningless or illogical and I'm definitely taking it seriously and will give it more thought in the future. So he said, that things can come out of a black hole, if you're looking at the time in reverse. In the normal direction of the time, as we always experience it, things can go only into black holes and never out of them. But in the opposite direction of the time, the things would come out of the black holes. Ok, I'll stop with this problem here, if someone is interested we can continue the discussion. I actually wanted to talk about another thing. About the dark energy. What troubles me is, why they're saying, that the dark energy should be a property of the "empty space" and not of the matter itself, like all other forces we know? For example, there may be an "universal law of repulsion" in operation in the Universe. It may be the same, as the law of gravity (by formula); maybe every 2 objects in the Universe repulse each other with a force directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the distance between them, but with 2 differences: 1. The constant of this repulsive force, let's call it R for example, may be let's say 10^5 times smaller than G, the gravitational constant; and 2. That repulsive force may reduce much slower with the distance , let's say with a factor of 1/r^10, where 'r' is the distance between the repulsing objects. Isn't the existence of such force going to produce the observed effect of the dark energy?
Ask Prof Roy Patrick Kerr. He advanced Schwarzschild's theories.
Your idea of a fundamental force of repulsion is interesting. But it doesn't explain whats happening. If you have 2 objects that have two forces working on them, one gravity and one repulsion. And gravity is much stronger, then we would simply not notice the force of repulsion because gravity wins. So in this case the measurements for gravity is: actual force of gravity minus actual force of repulsion equals our concept of gravity. The reason physicists say it is a property of empty space is because we are trying to explain the accelerating expansion of the universe and seeing the force "pushing" from empty space where there is no mass. For the fundamental force to be working there would have to be mass. There simply isn't enough particles to explain what is happening, so we calculate what force would be needed to effect this behavior and we call it dark energy. It's similar to how we discovered Neptune. There was an anomaly in Uranus's orbit. we figured out what mass would have to be there to cause the anomaly, looked there, and thar she blows. Neptune. So you discussion of this fundamental force of repulsion, works on mass and there is no mass where this phenomena of the expanding universe is happening, There would have to be a phenomenal amount of mass in the universe if this weaker than gravity force was real.. I hope that helps. From one amatuer to another,.
I'm very happy, that I'm getting any answers at all. I kind of live for such discussions and they're some of the most interesting things in my life. So thank you for your answer. Unfortunately, I'm aware of the effects of what we call dark energy and I'm afraid you didn't fully understand my example with the repulsive force. I suggested, that it may differ from the gravity at 2 points. First, as you understood well, it may be much weaker. But second, it may reduce at much lower rate with the distance, than the gravity. In that case, at not very large distances, like those within a star system, or even within a galaxy, that repulsive force may be almost insignificant compered to the gravity and thus very difficult to notice. But at very large distances, like those between the galaxy clusters (let's say at distances > 50 million ly), it may actually start to dominate over the gravity and as further away you look, so much stronger than the gravity it may seems. Which exactly can cause the far away galaxies to accelerate their speed of running away from us and from each other. And when the universe as a whole is not too large (at previous stages, closer to the big bang), the effects of such repulsive force (caused by the matter), would be practically insignificant. But as the universe expand further, the repulsive force may become significant at large distances, causing accelerating rate of expansion - exactly what we observe now. What do you think of that?
Is VSL (Variable Speed of Light) Cosmology falsifieable?
to be information or to have information..that is the answer